Because when the day is done you are only screwing the consumer! The average consumer has no clue this crap is taking place! They think Hopkins or whoever has discovered a new variety so they buy it not realizing they may allready be growing it or tried that variety and didn't even like it! Hopkins doesn't have to pay the trade mark fee nor do they have to propagate the material and sell it! It is a choice they make to avoid the fee and then create confusion among collectors and growers! Again most growers would rather pay $4 or $5 extra than buy the same plant twice by a different name. So I guess Hopkins will be confused by the new Zill Mangos and have to create new names for them to avoid the trademark fee!
Sincerely,
Ed Self
I don't think they are doing it solely to avoid the fee, but largely on principle. I would not sell the sweetheart as the sweetheart if I had a nursery. Why should someone else get money for doing absolutely nothing. If they had a patent on the variety that is another story and they would deserve any fees.
The situation you described about renaming Zill's cultivars does not apply to what Hopkins is doing because Zill's created those cultivars unlike the sweetheart people. To rename a Zill's cultivar would be wrong. It was wrong when Pine Island renamed an already named cultivar, the Young, to Tebow.
Trademarking a name is not wrong in itself because it is usually done for marketing purposes and people would generally know the name of the original cultivar as with the Ataulfo. Nurseries know the original name for the champagne mango so they do not have to sell it as Champagne and then pay fees. The real name of the sweetheart is not known so it is free game to rename. I know it is not the best solution so that is why there needs to be a DNA analysis of the sweetheart and compare to all the cultivars in FL and Australia. This will end the renaming and I am sure Hopkins will gladly call the "sweet sensation" by its original name.
To pay a few dollars extra to the sweetheart people is not fair to growers because as I've said before, the sweetheart people did not create the variety, instead they just RE-named it. Why should someone have to pay for a renamed name of an already named cultivar? That's unfair to all the nurseries that sell the "sweet sensation".
On another note, I don't think the sweetheart trademark would likely hold up in court. I explained my reasoning in another post. It will be interesting to see if they actually do sue anyone and what the result would be.
